Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1998 25/1-2 Japanese Zen Schools and the Transition to Meiji A Plurality of Responses in the Nineteenth Century Michel M ohr This article scrutinizes the lives of specificfigures affiliated with the three main Zen traditions; it presents firsthand information on their activities from the end of the Tokugawa period through the first decades of the Meiji era. Changes in the political structure and the ensuing economic or social transformations surprisingly did not fundamentally alter the way these Buddhists apprehended their respective legacies. Official pressure encour- aged them to put more emphasis on the education of commoners and they shared the global trend to give more importance to lay supporters. The con- tent of their teachings, however, primarily appears to reflect what this paper calls “the shrouded continuity” between the Tokugawa and Meiji eras. The teachers and laypersons examined here also illustrate the diversity that pervaded Meiji Buddhism despite the new government’s efforts to cen- tralize all Buddhist institutions; they further bear testimony to the fact that the mutual influence among representatives of different traditions often went beyond artificial sectarian boundaries. Although the political transformations and conflicts that marked the Meiji Restoration have received much attention, there are still significant gaps in our knowledge of the evolution of the Japanese Zen schools during the nineteenth century. This lacuna is especially apparent when we examine the last half-century of the Tokugawa period (the interval between 1817 and 1867) which is still often disre- garded in standard Buddhist scholarship. While the study of Buddhist figures directly involved in the political sphere and the study of insti- tutional history are expanding, our knowledge of developments in the Zen schools remains fragmentary. A better knowledge of this transitional stage of history nevertheless appears vital to understanding the process by which today’s institu- tions were shaped and, above all, the way religious practice is still con- ceived in Japanese monasteries. My attempt to explore this area is also
47
Embed
Japanese Zen Schools and the Transition to Meiji - …...Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1998 25/1-2 Japanese Zen Schools and the Transition to Meiji A Plurality of Responses
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1998 25/1-2
Japanese Zen Schools and the Transition to Meiji A Plurality of Responses in the Nineteenth Century
Michel Mohr
This article scrutinizes the lives of specific figures affiliated with the three main Zen traditions; it presents firsthand information on their activities from the end of the Tokugawa period through the first decades of the Meiji era. Changes in the political structure and the ensuing economic or social transformations surprisingly did not fundamentally alter the way these Buddhists apprehended their respective legacies. Official pressure encouraged them to put more emphasis on the education of commoners and they shared the global trend to give more importance to lay supporters. The content of their teachings, however, primarily appears to reflect what this paper calls “the shrouded continuity” between the Tokugawa and Meiji eras. The teachers and laypersons examined here also illustrate the diversity that pervaded Meiji Buddhism despite the new government’s efforts to centralize all Buddhist institutions; they further bear testimony to the fact that the mutual influence among representatives of different traditions often went beyond artificial sectarian boundaries.
A lthough the po litica l transformations and conflicts that marked
the Meiji Restoration have received much attention, there are still
significant gaps in our knowledge of the evolution of the Japanese
Zen schools during the nineteenth century. This lacuna is especially
apparent when we examine the last half-century of the Tokugawa
period (the interval between 1817 and 1867),which is still often disre
garded in standard Buddhist scholarship. While the study of Buddhist
figures directly involved in the political sphere and the study of insti
tutional history are expanding, our knowledge of developments in the
Zen schools remains fragmentary.
A better knowledge of this transitional stage of history nevertheless
appears vital to understanding the process by which today’s institu
tions were shaped and, above all, the way religious practice is still con
ceived in Japanese monasteries. My attempt to explore this area is also
168 Japan ese Jou rn a l o f R eligious Studies 25/1-2
motivated by the wish to understand the extent to which, and the rea
sons why, the diversity that characterized the Tokugawa and Meiji Zen
Buddhist world has been largely forgotten, or perhaps even deliber
ately concealed.
From the beginning of the Tokugawa period,even though the
immediate priorities of the religious policies of the government some
times changed, they remained guided by two basic objectives: central
izing and controlling the clergy. These objectives were also linked with
various attempts to use religion to legitimize the Bakufu’s own existence,
the so-called Tokugawa ideology. In this respect, the self-proclaimed
“new” Meiji government had the same goal as the deposed Bakufu.
Except for the first years of anti-Buddhist movements that went fur
ther than Tokugawa campaigns, the Meiji government merely went on
enforcing more radically policies that had been pursued for two hun
dred fifty years and putting more emphasis on the idea of the
“nation.”
This is not to deny the significance of exceptions, such as the
issuance in 1872 of a law encouraging priests to eat meat and to
marry~a clear attempt to undermine the clergy’s credibility. As has
often been argued, the religious policies implemented by the Meiji
government during its first years are perhaps best characterized by a
lack of consistency and by short-sighted measures that reflected the
political immaturity of the new oligarchs. I would, nevertheless, sug
gest that it is possible to see the change of regime as “a shrouded con-
tinuity.
To be sure, we now begin to realize to what extent today’s historiog
raphy has been “taken in” by the propaganda of the pro-imperial fac
tion, which the latter developed most effectively between the 1860s
and 1890s.1 The weight usually put on economic history also tends to
obscure the fact that the “industrial revolution” did not necessarily
have a great impact on the way Meiji Buddhists viewed themselves.
The scope of this article will be limited to presenting a cross section
of religious figures affiliated with Zen schools, particularly those who
experienced the transition from the late Tokugawa period to the early
Meiji and left traces of their thought. Though I shall concentrate
mainly on the way these figures apprehended their own time,I shall
also provide some biographical information,since I believe there is
still an enormous need for raw data and specific information.
I shall first present an outline of the lives and activities or three
priests, one each from the Soto, Obaku, and Rinzai denominations:
1 See in particular “the Meiji bias” discussed by Totman (1980,pp. 558-64).
will be rollowed by a short section on the lay oractitioner Hiratsuka
Raicho 平塚らいてう(1886-1971) and her interactions with Zen teachers.
Researchers attempting to find sources emanating- from outside the
clergy usually face major difficulties, so the testimony of Hiratsuka
Raicho represents a rare exception and allows us to learn more about
the life of Nantenbo. The outline review of these four figures will be
unevenly balanced, since the range and the quality of the sources are
of an uneven character.
The Zen teachers who experienced the transition from the Toku-
eawa regime to the Meiji government responded in diverse ways to
the new challenges,and their reactions sometimes varied or even con
tradicted one another within a single lineage. An example of this
would be the Engaku-ji line, widely considered to have been instru
mental in promoting a certain awareness of the outside world. This
tendency became conspicuous with Kogaku Soen 洪獄宗演 (Shaku 釋
1860-1919) and his journeys abroad, but before him the same lineage
also contributed to a suspicious attitude toward non-Asian religions.
For example, Kogaku5s teacher, Kosen Soon 洪川宗温 (Imakita 今̂!匕
18lb-1892), saw Confucianism and Shinto as compatible with Buddhism
but utterly rejected Christianity and its doctrine of creation as “absurd
explanations and deluding words” (gusetsu 肌をwi 愚I兄妄言)(Suzuki 1992,
p. 100; Nakamura and Takeda 1982,p. 64).
Before we examine individual biographies, let me say a word about
the institutional process that led to the establishment of the three
denominations known today as Zen schools. The so-called “Zen
school,” considered as one single homogeneous entity, actually
appears to be largely a fabrication of early Meiji politicians. It derives
in particular from the establishment in June 1873 of a “chief abbot
system” (kanchdsei 管長制)(Takenuki 1989,p. 283). The new govern
ment, willing to simplify the control over religious institutions, had
promuleated the principle that each Buddhist sect should have a top
leader, called “chief abbot of doctrinal instructors” (kydddshoku kanchd
教導職管長). For a short while (between 1873 and 1874) this policy of
consolidating the authority and reducing the intermediaries led to
the three traditions Soto, Rinzai, and Obaku being treated as a single
entity labeled the Zen Sect (Zemhic 禪宗
9 _Since writing an article on Nantenbo (Mohr 1995),I have discovered a number of new
facts about his life while conducting temple surveys. For the reading of Nantenbo^ surname
{azana 字、I chose “TdslrQ,,,following Nakahara (1985, p. 120), although it is also commonly
read “T 6 j i”
170 Japan ese Jou rn a l o f R eligious Studies 25/1-2
The first chief abbot appointed according to this system was Tekisui
Giboku 滴水宜牧(Yuri 由理 1821-1899). According to this system, the
chief abbot was elected for one year and was replaced every 31 March.
Tekisui5s successor was his colleague, the Shokoku-ji abbot Dokuon
Joshu 獨園承珠(Ogino 荻 野 1819-1895),who was followed by a Soto
representative, the Eihei-ji abbot Kankei Mitsuun 域溪游雲 (Hosoya
細谷,later changed to Kuga 久我;1817-1884 ZGD,p. 244c). Toward
the end of Kankei s mandate, the Shinto shrine and the lecture hall of
the Daikyo-in burned on 31 December 1873 (Kawaguchi 1982,p. 57).
In the reorganization that followed, the Ministry of Doctrine
(Kyobusho 孝夂咅K省)decided to allow the splitting of Soto and Rinzai
denominations. This event is recorded in Soto arcnives through a
notification dated 19 February 1874,while the Kyobusho^ document
bears the date 22 February (Kawaguchi 1982, p. 57; Takenuki 1989,
p. 283). At this staee the Obaku tradition was officially considered
“affixed” (gdfu 合附) to the Rinzai school, ana it eained the status of
an independent school only in 1876 (ZGD, p. 123d).
Teizan Sokuichi and the Soto School
Our main source oi information on leizan Sokuichi 鼎三良ロー (Mizuno
水野,then Shiratori 白鳥 1805-1892)3 is Kawaguchi Kofu 河口高風,who
has published an extensive monograph (1982),followed by a thorough
study (1985) of Teizan’s spiritual ancestor, Fugai Honko 風夕t本光
(1779-1847).4 Kawaguchi’s meticulous work begins with a detailed
biography of Teizan (pp. 9-123),a study of his disciples (pp. 127-95),
and a description oi the temples he reconstructed (pp. 201-18). The
next massive section of Kawaguchi’s book describes le izan’s works
and the texts he edited, adding photographic reproductions and tran
scriptions of the major sources, including Teizan’s sayings, Tenrai
yoroku 天籍餘銶 (pp. 221-537). The last part deals with Teizan and his
disciples,calligraphy (pp. 541-95).
Without Kawaguchi5s volume, I doubt I would have had access to
necessary documents; to my knowledge, Kawaeuchi is practically the
3For the reading of Teizan’s surname I followed NBJ, p. 390a-b, but it may also be read
“Teisan,
4 Fugai Honko (1779-1847) should not be confused with the famous Soto priest and
painter Fugai Ekun 風夕kfe 黒 (1568-1654), especially since Honko was also a gifted calligra
pher (Kawaguchi 1993, p. 567). Concerning Honko, ms ordination name should accurately
be written Honko 本光 rather than 本尚,but the second writing of his name has become cus
tomary (Kawaguchi 1993, p. 566). The unconventional life of Ekun is depicted in Addiss
1986; see also the entry in ZGD, p. 94a.
M o h r: Japanese Zen Schools 171
only author who deals with Teizan.5 The four articles mentioned in
the bibliography Sotoshu kankei bunken mokuroku 曹洞宗関係文献目録 are
all by him and are incorporated into this book (SBM up. 316-丄/).
Since Kofu is the son of Kawaeuchi Komyo 河口高明,the 34th abbot of
Hoji-ji法狩寺,le izan5s temple, he was in the best position to publish
archival material related to his predecessor. This means, however,
that he incurs the inevitable risk of lac King distance from his subject.
1 his is illustrated by a passage in the foreword by his father:
Among masters in [this temple’s] patriarchal history (rekidai soshi 歴代祖師),Reverend Teizan is to be noted as the great reviver (daichuko 大中興)of this temple and as one of the
insightful priests (tesso ̂ ) of the Meiji Soto school.
(Kawaguchi 1982,p. 5)
Kawaguchi’s position as associate abbot {fukujushoku 畐IJ住職)of Hoji-ji
grants him guardianship of the Teizan documents and Kawaguchi dis
plays little interest in what happened outside the walls of the Soto
school. Kawaguchi’s scholarship is, nevertheless, amazing, and his
position at the library of Aicm Gakuin University has probably con
tributed to the thoroughness of his survey. With these prefatory
remarks on the sources and their reliability, let us look at Teizan’s
biosrraphy, in particular his role during the transition from Tokugawa
to Meiji.
Personal Account of leizan
Although there is some question about the exact date of Teizan’s
birth,6 the Tenrai yoroku 天籟餘録 records that he was born on 27 Feb
ruary 1805 (second year of the Bunka era, first month, twenty-eight
day),7 in the village of Inokoishi 猪卞石,in present-day Nagoya しlty
(Kawaguchi 1982,p. 9). His father’s name was Mizuno Isoshichiro
フ]c野礒七郎,and Teizan lost his mother when he was seven years old
(aee according to the traditional count) .8 Tms probably was one
5The few exceptions are short entries in dictionaries and local histories of Nagoya, men
tioned by Kawaguchi himself (1982, p. 5-6).
Concerning these questions of the date of Teizan’s birth and his father’s real name, see
Kawaguchi 1982, pp. 9-12. The name of his father is wrongly given as Kikuta Motokichi
菊田元吉 in NBJ, p. 390a-b.
Concerning the precise dates given here, one may recall that the lunar calendar was
abolished and the Gregorian calendar introduced only in Meiji 5, when the third day of the
twelfth month was declared to be 1 January of Meiji 6 (1873). Dates prior to 1 January 1873
have therefore been converted to their Western equivalent.To facilitate checking the accuracy
of this conversion the Japanese nengo are given in parentheses for dates before 1873.
According to the register of Gessnin-ji月心寺,Teizan’s mother, whose posthumous
172 Japan ese Jou rn a l o f R eligious Studies 25/1-2
important factor that contributed to his ordination at Hoji-ji when he
was eleven.
After the usual years of apprenticeship, Teizan began his pilgrim
age, studying with most of the leading Soto teachers of his time. He
remained especially close to Kosen Mujaku 黄泉無著(1775-1839)9 for
a number of year, following him to Nagasaki when he was appointed
to Kotai-ji 皓臺寺 in 1828 (K a w a g u c h i 1982,p. 17). This temple already
had a peculiar aura of prestiee,since Dokuan Genko 獨菴玄尤
(1630-1698) had resided there as abbot,ana it had once been the
first-ranking (ZwYto 筆頭)S6to temple in Nagasaki (ZGD, p. 318b). To
understand the originality of Dokuan Genko5s legacy, one has to recall
that he had been a disciple of the Chinese teacher Daozhe Chaoyuan
道者超元(J. Doja Chogen, 1602-1662,OBJ, p. 263a-b), a forerunner
of the tradition that later came to be known as the “Obaku school.”
After a period during which Dokuan collaborated with Manzan
Dohaku FB山道白(163b-l7l5) in appealing to the Bakufu to reform
the misuse of Dharma succession practices in Soto lineages, he came
to be regarded by Manzan5s successors as 4 deviationist.5,10 The rather
unorthodox character of Dokuan5s erudition and of his understand
ing of Dharma succession was still certainly present in everyone’s
memory when Teizan followed Kosen to Nagasaki.
Teizan’s teacher Kosen Mujaku is particularly known for his
detailed commentary Shobo genzo shoten zokucho 正法眼藏渉典續貂. This
work represents a sum of traditional scholarship that aims at synthesiz
ing previous comments on D6gen5s lifework, an endeavor compared
to the marten fur {ten In or kuroten 黒貂,also called furuki, a “sable”)
that used to decorate crowns in ancient China. The “crown” is an allu
sion to the legacy of the eighteenth century and in particular to the
work of Menzan Zuiho 面山瑞方(1683-1769): Shobo genzo shotenroku
正法眼藏渉典録.
After the death of Kosen Mujaku, Teizan studied under Fugrai
Honko 風夕体光,a painter and learned teacher who is known in the
West for his Tetteki tosui 鐵笛倒吹,a text translated into English as The
Iron Flute (Senzaki and McCandless 1964).11 This koan collection had
been first compiled by Fueai5s master, Genro Oryu 玄樓奧育I (Murakami
name is Kanko Myosetsu Daishi 寒江妙雪大肺,died on 12 January 1812 (eighth year of the
was appointed by imperial order (chokumei 勒命) “first independent
abbot of S6ji-ji” (Sojiji dokuju kse總持寺獨住一世)(KohO 1927,p. 84).
By 3 June 1872 (Meiji 5.4.28), when the “Three tenets of teaching”
(Sanjo no kydsoku 三I条孝文貝IJ)19 were promulgated, the Soto authorities
17 . 一 . . .Tms sdroku (or furegashira 角蜀頭) office was first established in Japan at the time of
Ashikaga Yoshimitsu 足利義滿,who appointed Shun’oku Myoha 春屋妙跑(1311-1388) to this
position in 1379 (see C o llc u tt 1981, pp. 119-23). During the Tokugawa period, a more
elaborate system was established. Within the Soto school it was formulated in response to
the 1612 and 1615 Bakufu ordinances, taking the form of an internal Soto regulation dated
1629. According to this regulation, it was decided that three main temples in the Kan to area
would be at the top of the hierarchy ( Tenka daisdroku Kanto sankaji 天下大僧録關東三箇寺):
Sonei-]i總寧寺(in Konoaai国府台,Shimousa 下総,northwest of present-day Ichikawa,Chiba
prefecture), Ryuon-]i育直穩寺(in Ogose 越生,Musashi, Saitama prefecture), and Daichu-ji
大中寺(Ohira machi 大平町,Shimotsuke 下野,Ibaraki prefecture) (Takenuki 1989, p. 204).
The conference took place at Tennei-ji大寧寺,the temple of Gaun Doryu 臥雲童龍
(Murakami 村*上1797-1871), the 60 th abbot of Eihei-ji since 1848 who was then at the top of
the Soto hierarchy (Kawaguchi 1982, pp. 44-45). This temple is located in Kyoto, but an
inquiry to the present aobot revealed that no document of that time remains.
On these three tenets, see Ketelaar, who translates them as “Three Standards of
Instruction” (1990, pp. 106,225).
176 Japan ese Jou rn a l o f R eligious Studies 25/1-2
were advocating “active collaboration” in diffusing the official propa
ganda (K a w a g u c h i 1982,p. 50). At the grassroots level, however, some
of the Soto teachers who were to explain how these “perfectly vacuous
concepts,,20 should be understood had a hard time giving sermons
that would remain consistent with their own Buddhist convictions.
Basically, the “Three tenets of teaching” were only advocating rever
ence for the kami, the country, and the emperor and the court, with
the vague suggestion that the teacher should “illuminate the principle
of heaven and the way of man.” Their content was so meager that they
had to be supplemented in 1873 by “Seventeen themes” containing
more detailed slogans appealing to the sense of civic responsibility. At
any rate,Soto priests expounding to the plebeians how they should
understand these principles apparently sometimes took liberties in
interpreting them.
For example, Kankei Mitsuun, who was promoted “First-rank doc
trinal instructor” (daikydsei 太敎]E )21 on 18 July 1872 (Meiji 5.6.13),
went to Izu Peninsula to teach during the same year. On this occasion
his sermons apparently met a rather skeptical audience. Four listeners
later sent him a letter asking for clarification of his interpretation of
the three tenets, pointing at contradictions between what he had
taueht and their understanding of the court’s intentions. Teizan was
entrusted by Kankei with the task of replying to this defiant missive
and refuting its arguments, concerning the first tenet, commanding
people to “revere the kami and love the nation,” the authors of the
letters express doubts concerning Kankei s statement that in foreign
lands there were “instances of commoners (tami 臣) inheriting the
imperial throne (tenshoku 天職),” while this custom never existed in
the Japanese imperial lineasre. The second and harshest point of their
protest deals with the establishment of Shinto funerals (shinsdsai
ネ申葬祭). They complain that the rejection of ancient rites not only
goes against filial piety but also contravenes the spirit of the three
tenets. They even claim that if directives to hold Shinto funerals were
not abandoned or amended the sermons (given by Buddhist clerics)
would be utterly useless and would only serve to confuse the people.
1 he very system of doctrinal instructors, they add, was conflicting with
the intentions of the court (K a w a g u c h i 1982, pp. 50-51). Their protest
201 borrow this expression from Ketelaar (1990,p. 107).
The highest grade among “doctrinal instructors” {kydddshoku 教導職) (Kokugo daijiten 国話大辞典,p. 674a). The title kyosei 教正 seems to be borrowed from a similar rank in Qing-
dynasty China, where the jiaozheng 教]E was “the head teacher” (shunin kydkan 主任孝文官) in
charge of prefectural schools (shugaku 州学)[Daikanwa jiten 大漢和辞典 v o l.5, p. 505b). A
complete list of the fourteen grades is provided in Kawaguchi (1982, p. 50).
M o h r: Japanese Zen Schools 177
apparently referred here to an allusion Kankei made verbally, but we
do not know the contents of what he said.
Teizan’s response first clarifies Kankei5s intent by giving the context
of the mythical emperor Yao 克 who demonstrated his virtue by hand
ing over his title to his minister Shun 舜 . Teizan is careful to state that
this example of a foreign land could not apply to Japan, where “even a
little child knows that the imperial rank (hdso 寶if乍)cannot be the lot
of subjects (shinmin 臣氏ハ,’ Teizan rejects the second argument of the
authors of the letter by simolv asserting they misunderstood Kankei,s
explanation. He argues that as long as there is no mingling between
Shinto and Buddhist funerals everyone is free to choose either rite.
Teizan finally blames the authors of the letter for not having grasped
the purpose of the court, which he spells out as being “to regard Shinto
and Buddhist clerics as equivalent and [beloneine to] one single pro
fessionw (shinkan soryo isshi 神官僧侶一視同職)(K a w a g u c h i 1982,
p. 51). fhis disputation illustrates the way everyone was speculating
on “the intentions of the court” (choshi 草月旨),whose utterances were
so sparse.
In short, Teizan was a major force in convincine laypersons and
other priests to embrace the principles contained in the three tenets.
His effort is epitomized by a publication dated March 1873,
“Justification of the Three Tenets” (Sanjo benkai 三條辨解),which is
reported by the Shaji torishirabe ruisan 社寺取調類纂 to be the work of
Kankei Mitsuun. The same book was simultaneously printed with the
same contents under a different title (Sanjo ryakukai 三I条署解),carry
ing the notation “by the Soto school head temple” (Sotoshu honzan cho
曹洞宗本山著). There is, however, some suspicion that the book might
actually have been printed by the Daikyoin 大孝文院(Great Teaching
Academy), using Eihei-ji,s name (K a w a g u c h i 1982,p. 53). Whoever
the issuer, Teizan’s letters show that he was in charge oi distributing
the Sanjo benkai 三I条妻#解 to temples in the countryside in his capacity
of doctrinal instructor, explaining the contents, and collecting money
for the publication.22 A manuscript copy of the Sanjo benkai by Teizan
is kept at Hojo-ji, suggesting that Teizan held this publication in great
esteem. Ih is document can be considered a crucial testimony to the
willingness of some of the leading Soto representatives to support the
government’s indoctrination policy.
Although yielding to official injunctions or spontaneously tryine to
please the court do not account for all the reactions emerging among
Soto priests, Teizan’s stance seems best characterized as a zealous
29This can be see in particular from the reports dated 26 September 1873 and 20 Janu
ary 1874 (Kawaguchi 1982, pp. 53,56).
178 Japan ese Jou rn a l o f R eligious Studies 25/1-2
commitment to make the best of the government’s strategy while pro
moting his sect’s own interests. In the turmoil of this period,Teizan
also collaborated with representatives of other Buddhist schools in an
attempt to improve the standards of doctrinal instructors. In a letter
dated 6 February 1875 and addressed to the office supervising Eihei-ji
and Soji-ji (rydzan kan'in 兩山監院),he reports the organization of a
meeting at the Pure Land temple Jukyo-in 毒經院 in Nagoya. As a
result oi the consultations held between the representatives of differ
ent Buddhist denominations, an agreement was founa m regard to
proposing a new way to select the doctrinal instructors. This choice
would be delegated to a specialized office, the consultation Office of
the Six Schools [Rokushu s'dgisho 六宗合讓所),instead of entrusting this
task to each sect. In other words, the candidates would be selected by
their peers, through the office of a teacher search section {toko kokyu-
ka 都講講究課),instead of being imposed by the sect’s head temples.
Ih is is, of course, not articulated in Teizan’s writings, but one can sur
mise that its objective was the prevention of the nomination of incom
petent doctrinal instructors, which was often denounced as a plague.
To realize this project, a “pledge” (meiyaku 盟約) was siened by seven
teachers belonging to the Soto, Tendai, Jodo, Nichiren,Rinzai, and
Shingon denominations, who directed their petition to the Daikyoin
(Kawaguchi 1982,p. 56).
There are several other aspects of Teizan’s life and teaching that
deserve to be examined, but I shall conclude this section by mention
ing only ms particular interest in textual studies. O f all those who had
consulted Fusrai in their youth, Teizan apparently gained Fugai5s early
respect by his devotion to reading, while Fusrai5s other disciple, Ryo-
saku Tanzan 良作坦山(Hara 原 1819-1892),was praised for his single-
m inded practice of zazen (K a w a g u c h i 1982, pp. 121-22). This
characteristic led reizan to devote much of the last part of his life to
the edition of classics and comparisons of ancient texts. In 1878,both
Soto head temples celebrated the six-hundredth memorial of their
second patriarch, Koun Ejo 孤雲懷奘 (1198-1280). On this occasion
Teizan committed himself to the task of reprinting a revised edition of
Koun,s Komyozo zanmai 光明藏三昧(The samadhi of the light stored [in
everyone]),which was published in August of the following year. This
text of recorded teachings had first been printed by Menzan Zuiho in
1767; the emended version marks the beginning of a new wave of
publications aimed at fostering Soto sectarian studies (shugaku 宗乎).
Teizan was not the only Soto cleric involved in this activity, and others
like Bokusan Kin’ei 穆山瑾英(Nishiari 西 有 1821-1910) worked in a
similar direction, trying to raise the level of Soto scholarship. Yet the
two men were far from aereeine on all hermeneutical issues, and the
M o h r: Japanese Zen Schools 179
former’s personal annotations sometimes also included criticism of
the understanding of the latter (K a w a g u c h i 1982,p. 1 01 ).In this
sense, Teizan, despite his efforts to adapt to the changes proper to the
Meiji era, still embodied a sum of knowledge and the kind of inde
pendent erudition that predominated in the line of his Tokugawa
predecessors.
To summarize the significance of Teizan: one must stress his inheri
tance of a particularly wide range of traditions. Via Kosen Mujaku he
learned a blend of teaching that had been marked by Dokuan Genko
and his Chinese legacy. This was further nurtured by the guidance
Teizan received from K6sen5s successor Daisen Taisho, who was also a
spiritual heir of the Obaku-influenced Tokuo Ryoko. Teizan also con
sulted Fugai Honko, a teacher whose roots go back to Tenkei Denson,
a peculiar Soto lineage that emphasized the use of koan in its prac
tice. The efforts by Teizan’s teacher Kosen Mujaku to harmonize this
tradition with the trend followed by Menzan,s successors, who venerated
D6gen,s Shobogenzo, appears to mark an important step in shaping the
sense of union in Meiji Soto clergy. Teizan, who further promoted this
tendency, can be considered one of the people responsible for inte
grating the Tokugawa Soto legacy into a doctrinal sum that has largely
remained unchanged since then (except that today’s interpreters
often display a narrower background).
Rydchu, Korin, and the Obaku school
Ryochu Nyoryu 良忠如隆(1793-1868) marks a turning point in the
history of the Obaku lineage. His appointment in 1851 as thirty-third
abbot of Manpuku-ji came after long vears of practice under Rinzai
teachers. He had consulted Shunso Shoju 春叢紹珠(1751-1839)23 for
more than three years before he received a Rinzai certification from
Takuju Kosen 卓洲胡僭(1760-1833) .24 This event can be interpreted
from two points of view, which do not necessarily contradict each
23 Shunso Shoju is a successor of Hakuin’s disciple Suio Genro 遂翁元盧(1717-1790). In
regard to Shunso^ dates, I followed Zenbunka 145, p. 76. KSBD gives only the year he
received his imperial title of Daikankosho Zenji 大鑑廣照禪師(vo l.1 ,p. 178). This has mis
takenly been taken as the year of his death by NBJ, p. 336b.94 . . . . . -
This filiation is fully acknowledged, and even emphasized, by the Obaku teacher
Murase, who includes a photographic reproduction of Takuju^ certificate (1982, pp.
72-77). Biographical information on Ryochu can be found in KSBD 3,pp. 4-8; ZGD, p.
995d; and OBJ, pp. 388a-89a. The entry in OBJ, however, contends that from 1837 Ryochu
consulted Shunno Zen’etsu 春■禪悦 (1772-1844), one of Takuju5s successors, and completed
his training in 1838, five years after Takuju?s death. In regard to the dates of Shunno, I fol
lowed Zenbunka 125, p. 81.
180 Japan ese Jou rn a l o f R eligious Studies 25/1-2
other: on the one hand, it represents the emergence of a new vitality
in the Obaku teaching; on the other, it also signifies that the Obaku
lineage had returned to the bosom of the Rinzai school. Obaku teachers
indeed had claimed to represent the true Linji tradition, but their
legacy thus was reunited with its Japanese expression.
Personal connections between Obaku and Rinzai priests had, how
ever, been tightening since the time of Hakuin Ekaku 白隱慧鶴(1686—
1769). The fact that Hakuin consulted the Obaku teacher Eeoku
Domyo 慧極道明(1632-1721) at a critical phase in his practice repre
sents a crucial event in Hakuin’s biography, which has not yet received
the attention it deserves.25 Conversely, when Hakuin had gained some
degree of recognition, the Obaku priest Kakushu Jocho 格宗}爭超
(1711-1790) came to seek his guidance. Kakushu became the twenty-
second abbot of Manpukuji m 178b, but he first consulted Hakuin in
1749 and subsequently contributed to introducing Hakuin5s style into
the Obaku lineage.26 His role was pivotal in that he succeeded to the
last Cmnese abbot of Manpuku-ji, Dacheng Zhaohan 大成照漢 (1709-
1784, J. Daijo Shokan), and that his nomination marked a shitt m the
policy of the Bakufu, which seized the occasion to restrict the abbacy
to Japanese priests (OBJ, p. 60a).
Korin Yosho 虎林曄嘯(Yoshii 吉 井 1835-1902) was connected with
Ryochu through his own teacher, Banjo Goko 萬丈悟光(1815-1902)
(OBJ, pu. 312b-314a). Of relevance to us in this inquiry are the roles
Korin played durine the Restoration and his acquaintance with priests
from other schools. Incidentally, he happened to consult the same mas
ter as Nantenbo and can thus be considered his brother in the Dharma.
since Korin is absent from major reference works,27 a word about
the few existing sources on his lite appears necessary. Today, we must
rely on three short documents, of which only one has been published:
Obakusan dai yonjuichi dai Yoshii Korin zenji ryakuden 黄檗山第四十
一代吉井虎林禪師略伝,a biography published in the November 1902
issue of the journal Zenshu 赙宗. The other two manuscripts are the
draft of an abridged chronological biography, Obaku dai yonjuichi dai
Korin Yosho zenji ryakunenpu黄檗山第四十一代虎林曄嘯禪師略年譜,and a
manuscript copy of the discourse pronounced by korm when he was
aDpointed abbot of Manpuku-ji, Korin zenji shins an ho go 虎林胸p•師
晉山法言吾. The beginning of the chronological biography bears the
25 Itsumadegusa, HZS 1,p. 182, Kato (1985, p. 137),Rinoie (1981, pp. 217-22), Waddell
(1983, p. 109).
26 Kato (1985, pp. 228 and 231, note 16),OBJ, pp. 59b-60b. This episode is also men
tioned m Keikyoku sodan, HZS 1,p. 144.27
To my knowledge, the only exception is OBJ, pp. 130-31.
M o h r: Japanese Zen Schools 181
indication “draft by Setsudo (uncompleted),,,which tells us it has
been written by Yoshinaga Setsudo 吉永嘗堂 (1881-1964), a journalist
who devoted his life to gathering materials belonging to the Obaku
tradition.28 Although the author of the article published in Zenshu is
mentioned only in a marginal annotation, it has probably been written
by Setsudo or at least has used some of its contents, since it follows a
very similar scheme. Besides these materials, we find some informa
tion in local chronicles recording the history oi the city of Isahaya
諫早,where Korin spent his late years as the eighteenth abbot of
Shoku-ji 性空寺,a temple founded by Keigan Myodo 桂巖明幢(1627-
1710) (OBJ, pp. 91b-92b).29 Korin’s hometown of Taku (Saga prefec
ture) also strives to make his artistic gifts known to a wider public
(Takushi Kyodo Shiryokan 1991,p. 39).
It eoes without saying that the above documents offer only a very
fragmentary vision of Korin5s lite. Despite this limitation, let us look at
the bits of information we can find. The first printed document is the
most comprehensive.
Korin is also known under his first surname of Kozan 虎山 and the
surname Sonsei 巽 栖 (“[The one] living in the southeast [corner of
Kyoto],,),which he took when residing in Uji. He was born on 2 April
1835 (sixth year or the Tenpo era, third month, fifth day) in the small
town of Taku, country of Hizen (present Saga Prefecture) as the
youneest son of four brothers and sisters. He was entrusted to Fukuju-
j i ネ畐聚寺 of Taku30 as novice at an early aee, but his youth was marked
by years of hardship and misery when his first teacher, Eun Tsuryu
慧雲通首I (n.d.), died. At the age of ten Korin had to return to his family,
but his father soon died too,and his mother barely manaeed to feed
her children. His formal ordination took place at Fukuju-ji of Taku,
as a disciple of Gasan Ekisui 雅山益翠 ( d .1858) (OBJ, p. 130a). At a
later stage Korin embarked on his spiritual pilgrimage, arriving at
Manpuku-ji in 1859,at the age of twenty-five. He practiced there
28 On Setsudo5s biography and for his dates, see Imamura 1991.29
For local chronicles, see Tanaka Tameichi (1965, pp. 123—26), Isahaya Shishi Hen-
sanshitsu (1962, 3,pp. 154-57 and 4, pp. 152—60) and Isahaya Kindaishi Henshuiinkai
(1992). On 27 December 1886, Korin received the mandate to leave Zuiko-in, the Man
puku-ji subtemple where he resided from 1875,and to enter Shoku-ji.
There are two temples called Fukuju-ji 福聚寺. The one in Taku, Korin’s hometown, is
signalized by its “temple surname” {sango 山号),Kensho-san 見1、生山. It is located in a remote
area and has always had few patrons. The other one is located in the Kokura ward of
Kitakyushu (Fukuoka prefecture) and possesses the surname Koju-san 廣靜山. It is a large
complex of buildings, and it used to be even larger when it was founded by Jifei Ruyi
即非如—— (J. Sokuhi Nyoicni 1616-1671) with the patronage of Ogasawara Tadazane
小笠原忠真(1596-1667). Only the second temple has an entry in ZGD, p. 1065a. To avoid
confusion I shall distinguish them as Fukuju-ji of Taku and Fukuju-ji of Kokura.
182 Japan ese Jou rn a l o f R eligious Studies 25/1-2
almost two years under the guidance of Zuiun Goho 瑞雲悟芳
(1798-1869),the thirty-fourth abbot of Manpuku-ji who was a fellow-
countryman of the Hizen area (OBJ, 165a-b). It is during this period
that Korin formally received in 1860 the three sets of precepts (san-
dankai 三擅戒) specific to Obaku monks.31 Zuiun kept his function of
abbot from 1857 until his death on 27 May 1869 (Meiji 2.4.16),con
fronting the fall of the Bakufu and the ensuing privation of economic
support (goshuinroku ^ fP # ) for Manpuku-ji.
In 1861 Korin chose to return to the Kyushu area and to become a
disciple of Banjo Goko 萬丈悟光32 at Fukuju-ji of Kokura (OBJ, pp.
312b-314a). It is worth noticing that Banjo had followed Ryochu
Nyoryu for nine years, taking successively the functions of chief cook
Raicho reports having been particularly moved by an article of Tsunajima Ryosen
綱島梁川(1873-1907) called “My experiment of seeing God” ( Yo ga kenshin no jikken 予が見ネ申の実‘験),w hich describes the necessity of undergoing a transformation beyond mere
intellection (H iratsuka 1992,1,p. 190).
The American side o f the story is related by Soshin Shigetsu himself (The First Zen Institute of America 1947; see in particular p p .19 and 23), a narration taken up by Fields
(1992, l,p p . 174-77).
190 Japan ese Jou rn a l o f R eligious Studies 25/1-2
Raicho recalls how she was deeply shocked to be separated from
her master, and how Sokatsu recommended that she not follow another
teacher during his absence (p. 221). Nevertheless, her thirst for fur
thering her practice was pressing, and she started to do sanzen under
Shinjo Sosen 眞淨宗言全(Sakagami 1842-1914),the abbot of Seiken-ji
7言見寺 in Okitsu (Shizuoka Prefecture), who came regularly to Tokyo
to lecture. A group of lay practitioners called the Nyoi-dan 如意団
invited shinjo every month to direct a sesshin organized at Kaizen-ji
海禪寺(in Asakusa),and Raicho attended it.53
Shortly afterward Raicho was involved in afrairs with two men,
which culminated m March 1908 when she ran away with one of her
university teachers, Morita Sohei 森田草平(1881-1949),a disciple of
Natsume Soseki 夏目漱石(1867-1916). This event, called the “Shio-
bara incident” (Shiobara jiken 塩原ヽ 事件) because of the hot spring in
Ibaraki Prefecture where they were caught, was much exploited by the
press, and the whole Hiratsuka family had to endure the conse
quences of this “scandal,,,wmch became the talk of the town and gave
birth to Morita’s novel Baien 煤 煙 (Soot and smoke).
Partly to escape the curiosity of journalists, Raicho lived for a while
in Kamakura and in Nagano Prefecture, where her practice remained
intensive. During her stay in Kamakura she lived in a small hermitage
within the precincts of Engaku-ji, but she describes Koeaku Soen^
successor as chief abbot, Kanno Sokai 函應宗海 (Miyaji 1856-1923),as
“absolutely unattractive,,,ana she did not feel like doing sanzen under
his direction (p. 274).
Of most relevance to our discussion is what haDpened when she
returned to Tokyo in the winter of 1908. Having heard that Nantenbo
was coming every month to the Nihon Zengakudo 曰本禪學堂 in
Kanda to conduct a sesshin, she started practicing sanzen with him.
During their first meeting in the sanzen room, Nantenbo abruptly
asked her: “What did you understand by practicing Kamakura Zen?
You probably didn’t understand anything at all. If your master has
been indulgent with you and if you therefore believe that you have
really eot kensho, it is a biff mistake.” Raicho recounts that she could
not understand why Nantenbo was so agrsressive toward her former
Engaku-ji teachers. She conjectured that Nantenbo mieht have meant
to encourage her to return to her beginner’s m ind and to devote her
self to practice with renewed energy (pp. 289-90).
In December 1909 Raicho went to Nantenb65s temple, Kaisei-ji
fhis temple still exists and has been located in the popular area called Kappabashi
合羽橋,to the east of Ueno Station.
M o h r: Japanese Zen Schools 191
泄'/言寺 in Nishinomiya, to participate in the Rohatsu sesshin. During
this intense week of training she passed through the mu koan, and
received from Nantenbo the new name of Zenmyo 全 明 (p. 294). This
name is a combination of Nantenb65s ordination name zenchu 全忠
with the ^mo-Japanese reading of Raicho^ first name, Ham 明.54 The
formal bestowal of this name by Nantenbo indicates his full recogni
tion of Raicho5s accomplishments.
Nantenbo Choice of a Different Style
From these few bits of evidence it is difficult to draw any definite con
clusions about Nantenbo5s evaluation of Tetto Sokatsu^ teachinsr. but
at the very least they suggest that Nantenbo^ requirements for ms dis
ciples were different from those of his colleagues in the Kanto area.
Regionalism is another element that cannot be entirely disregarded.
Alludine to people who misunderstood his intentions,Nantenbo once
fulminated:
Natives of Tokyo breathe hard through their noses [i.e., are arrogant], but there is nothing settled below the navel [i.e.,
they have not developed their energy in the ham, they have no firm resolve, no guts]. (Nakahara 1984,p. 193)
Nantenbo underscores that he has not the slightest intent to “praise
himself while rejecting others” {jisan taki 自賛他毀),55 and he appears
to have been aware of people who disagreed with his frequent invec
tives against “fake Zen.” After this prelim inary precaution, he
declares:
When I look at people who come to do sanzen at my place and
say that they used to sro to Kamakura, they all interpret koan,
saying whose teisho are better,whose sanzen is better, and they
put on airs, pretending to be awakened (satotta furi o sum 悟ったふりをする)just by receiving koan or listening to teisho.
(Nakahara 1984, p. 194)
Nantenbo confesses that he disliked the very idea of giving lectures
Geis/id f是唱) and attibuted more importance to personal consultation
(sanzen 參禪)(Nakahara 1984,pp. 134-35). Speaking of those who
Raicho is a pseudonym coming from the word for the mountain bird raicho 雷鳥,the
rock ptarmigan or Lagopus mutus. Raicho herself explains that she chose to write it with the
old hiragana spelling らいてう rather than in kanji or in modern hiragana らいちよう(H iratsuka 1992, l ,p. 374).
This expression refers to the seventh of the ten cardinal precepts (Jiijiikinkai 十重禁薇、
listed in the 价れ脚^ ' X 梵網経(T. 24 .1004cl9).
192 Japan ese Jou rn a l o f R eligious Studies 25/1-2
indulge in stereotyped lectures, he plays upon the word teisho by
describing it as the behavior of people “who pursue traces of hooves
and speak about it” (teisho 蹄卩昌)• It is in this ironical context that he
mentions Kosen Soon and Koeaku Soen by name. He adds that each
oral performance, be it teisho or theater, has a distinctive “tone” (hari
張り)in its expression. The tone found around Kamakura, he says,
“must be K6sen’s or S6en,s” (Nakahara 1984,pp. 320-21). This state
ment is probably to be taken as a criticism aimed not so much at Kosen
and Soen themselves but rather at their successors or emulators.
The skeptical attitude of Nantenbo toward teachers from the
Engaku-ji line could, however, be considered a question of style and
should be put in perspective. Coming from the countryside, Nantenbo
was obviously suspicious of the intelligentsia linked with the Kamakura-
based temples, and his standpoint might even be understood in terms
of a kind of “inferiority complex.” There is, however, an important
episode that reveals another facet of his perception of Soen. Accord
ing to Raicho, Nakahara Shugaku 中原秀嶽 ( d .1928),56 the abbot of
Kaizen-ji, was adopted and ordained by Nantenbo at Zuigan-ji. Yet a
few years later we find Shugaku practicing at the Eneaku-ji monastery
under the direction of Soen, and Shugaku is even reported to have
obtained S6en5s inka (Hiratsuka 1992,1,pp. 233,290). Although one
cannot find the mention of Shugaku among Soen5s successors (Tama-
mura and Inoue 1964,p. 727),57 the draft of a letter by Nantenbo kept
at Taibai-ji大梅守 m Sendai throws some new light on this eniema.
In spite of his widespread reputation for being rough, Nantenbo
was meticulous in several respects, in particular in his correspon
dence; he used to write a draft every time, before writing out a fair
copy. At Taibai-ji Nantenbo even left a memo showing how many let
ters he wrote every year and to which area they were sent; some years
he wrote more than seven hundred letters, a record that earned him
the nickname of 'letter-wriune T6shii.” While most originals have
been lost, some of the drafts remain, and one of them tells us a por-
56 _The date of the death of Nakahara Shugaku is recorded in the register of Kaizen-ji. I
owe this information to the present abbot, Goto Lizan 後滕栄山. SlrQgaku was the 19th abbot
and died on 5 May 1928 at the approximate age of fifty-six, but I haven’t been able yet to
check the exact date oi his birth. According to the abbot of Taibai-ji, Hoshi Chiyu 星智雄,
who knew him personally, shugaku5s name before his adoption was Nagai Yujiro 7jc井雄ニ良!̂
and his father was Nagai Zenshin 7̂c弁神進 (n.d.), the 20th abbot of Zenno-ji 善應寺 in the
area of Sendai.57 . _
Another reason for the conspicuous absence of Shugaku in the Dharma charts of the
Engaku-ji misrht simply be, as Soshin Shigetsu puts it, the fact that “thirteen of the nine hun
dred (disciples of Sokatsu) had completed the training, but of these thirteen only four had
really penetrated to the core o f Zen. These four he had ordained as teachers” (The First Zen Institute of America 1947, p. 23).
M o h r: Japanese Zen Schools 193
tion of Shugaku^ story. The date and addressee are missing, but the
contents suggest this letter was sent to Soen (Hoshi 1993,p. 6).
In the letter, Nantenbo replies to his correspondent, who had writ
ten about the apprentice Shugaku, and first of all thanks him for his
“solidarity” {shumei 宗盟)• He adds that uShugaku has deserted (dasso
脱走)Taibai-ji, probably on the instigation of his elder brother Naeai
Chirei 永井智嶺 (n.d.), an evil monk.” This gives us some explanation
for Shugaku5s presence at Eneaku-ji. Finally, Nantenbo requests his
correspondent to apply his compassion and his influence as a teacher
to make the apprentice ^hueaku realize his misbehavior, adding that
he would be ready to forgive Shugaku if only he would show sincere
repentance.
The story as viewed from Raicho5s side is slightly different. In her
memoirs there is a chapter in wmch she recalls her “first k i s s .” The
incident took place one evening during the spring of 1907. She had
been sitting alone at Kaizen-ji for a couple of hours and suddenly real
ized it had become dark and she was late. Upon leaving the temple
she passed in front of the office where the young abbot, Shugaku,
exclaimed “Oh,you were still there?” As he took a candle and helped
her open the heavy entrance door she unexpectedly kissed him.
Raicho explains that she was in a state of complete stillness and that
her behavior was utterly innocent,but the monk took it for something
different. After days probably marked by agony he resolved to ask his
teacher Soen for permission to marry her. The next time Raicho
came to Kaizen-ji it was her turn to be dumbfounded, for Shueaku
proposed marriage (Hiratsuka 1992,1,pp. 230-31). She then had to
deploy treasures oi imagination to think up how to refuse him and to
convince him that she was not ready and had other priorities. But this
apparently trivial incident spelled ruin for Shugaku5s monastic career;
he lost in particular his chance to become an “official” Dharma suc
cessor of Soen, although he had received his early certification. This
ending of ^hueaku^ chances of promotion would confirm the exis
tence of a “two-tiered clerical ranking system” among Rinzai priests
too, a phenomenon of the Soto school observed by Richard Jaffe in
this issue. It means that toward the end of Meiji a Rinzai monk who
chose to marry would be allowed to do so, but would have to give up
all hope of becoming a high-ranking teacher.
Finally, Raicho managed to keep up a friendly relationship with
Shugaku until the summer of 1910,when he became her first “love
instructor” for one time ( H ir a t s u k a 1992,1,p. 312). Raicho con
fessed this incident only in the last version of her autobiography, long
after ^hueaku was dead. The episode of Shugaku escaping Taibai-ji
194 Japan ese Jou rn a l o f R eligious Studies 25/1-2
for the capital, then achieving some success as a monk at Engaku-ji,
before falling in love with a cheeky young lady of the establishment is
picturesque enough. There is some speculation about whether it
could have inspired Soseki^ novel Kusamakura 草枕 (literally uThe grass-
pillow,,,translated into English as “The Three-Cornered World,’),
which contains striking' similarities and even mentions Taibai-ji. This
issue is not my main concern and a whole monograph has been writ
ten on the subject; it reaches rather negative conclusions, on chrono
logical grounds (T a k a h a s h i 1997).
What matters for our purpose is that Shugaku might be a key per
son for understanding the somewhat tense relationship between Nan
tenbo and Soen, and through them between factions belonging to the
Myoshin-ji and Engaku-ji lineages. As for Raicho, her story shows to
what extent a first realization of kensho, even if genuine, can be associ
ated with a lack of maturity in apprehending human emotions or
social conventions. The words Nantenbo addressed to Raicho upon
their first meeting take a different significance when we realize that
he presumably was aware of at least some of her background with
men. Nantenbo certainly was kept informed of all developments con
cerning Shugaku, who was after all his adopted son. He is also likely to
have learned about the Morita afrair through the press.
As can be surmised from the above excerpts and from his complex
connections with Kamakura Zen, Nantenbo was not always a champion
of diplomacy either, and sometimes he could not hide his aversions;
although he kept a courteous profile when adressine Soen directly, his
teisho and his dealing with Raicho reveal a distrustful attitude. While
personal feelings (the “treachery” of ̂ hueaku) might also have played
a role,tms should not be interpreted as pure rudeness, as appears for
example in the detailed requirements for Nantenbo^ reform project
presented below.
Nantenbo ys 1893 Reform Project
Nantenbo obviously did not hit upon the idea of reforming ms school
all of a sudden. After having consulted twenty-four teachers when he
was a monk and having received the certification from his master, he
resolved to eo around the monasteries scattered throughout the coun
try again, but this time to check his fellow masters. He reports leaving
for such a trip on three occasions: in 1874 (aee 36),in 1876 (asre 38),
and in August 1917 (age 79). The purpose of these trips, he says, was
not to measure his own superiority or inferiority compared to others;
rather, he went because he “could really not stand the sadness of
M o h r: Japanese Zen Schools 195
(witnessing) the decline of the great Dharma” (N a k a h a r a 1984,p.
149).
The origins of this initiative can in fact be located a little earlier
and go back to Meiji 5 (winter of 1872),when he was asked by
Myoshin-ji and Daitoku-ji authorities to review the sermons given by
priests in the temples along the Tokaido road. During this trip of
inspection, Nantenbo was accompanied by Goten Dokai 鰲巔道契
(1814-1891),a teacher he had consulted before (KSBD, 3,pp. 90-91;
ZGD, p. 65oaj. At that time Nantenbo, who was already thirty-four,
was obviously carrying out his duties as a government-appointed cler
ic, but he also seems to have taken tms opportunity to evaluate the
state of the Dharma in the areas he visited. In other words, the
uneven caliber of the teachers Nantenbo met during ms trip might
have led him to conceive of educational means to improve their stan
dard. According to the new policies, a selected number of priests had
been ordered to preach and were treated by the government as doc
trinal instructors classified into fourteen categories. The mission of
this trip was to determine into wmch category each priest would be
classified. This had to be done in the name of “propagating the Great
Teaching” (taikyd senpu 大孝文旦布),that is to say, for the diffusion of
State Shinto ideas (Nakahara 1984, pp. 138-39).
The 1893 project itself is described by Nantenbo as the fruit of thirty
years of labor and as the result of his reaction to the degenerating
conditions of monastic life, “since the demise of Hakuin, each passing
year has seen a degradation of the true style of the patriarchs; all
monasteries (dojo) are falling to the depths of desolation” (Nakahara
1984,p. 159). Consequently, he resolved to accomplish a “great revo
lutionM (daikakumei) in the world of his school, similar to the political
revolution achieved by the Restoration. Nantenbo consulted his
acquaintances among the other roshi to determine wmch articles
would be included in the actual examination. After entrusting him
with the responsibility of choosing the most appropriate items,they
apparently revised the final draft. According to Nantenbo, the six mas
ters involved in this draft were Tankai Gensho 潭海玄昌(1812-1898),58